DTK
New
Well, they look very much alike, even the posture seems to be the same. But to be honest, I'm afraid physical similarity can too easily be explained away by the debunkers using genetics. But then, of course, each taken for themselves, most if not all of the "items of evidence" I think I've got from "my cases" could be easily explained away, too. It's more like the sheer amount of evidence that makes me quite certain there's more to it.
Did you show pictures of your grandmother to your niece? Any reactions?
I have a picture of my sister-in-law, but I actually didn't have the guts to show it to my niece. Mostly because I didn't want the parents to get upset, but, I have to admit, also because I'm afraid of her reaction, whatever it would be.
As for physical similarity, there wasn't much of it when the girl was very little. My sister-in-law was very slim and dark-haired and the child was kind of heavy-set and fair-haired. What was very similar, though, was a distinct melancholy look around her eyes. A high-pitched, but quiet and soft-spoken voice and fine manners also seemed very similar. And over the years, she lost a lot of the heavy-set look, so I guess the physical similarity has increased. But I'd still say that it can't be counted as proof for reincarnation, because physical things in general are likely ruled by the more materialistic side of nature (which is unfortunately still widely regarded as the only one).
There could be fields like Rupert Sheldrake hypothesizes them, of course, but I don't know if they would be "carried over" with consciousness. If they were, why is the physique not a 1:1 match? Of course, there are the birthmarks, sometimes even birth defects (missing fingers etc.), that unmistakenly point to the conclusion that physical things sometimes absolutely are "passed on" non-physically.
Did you show pictures of your grandmother to your niece? Any reactions?
I have a picture of my sister-in-law, but I actually didn't have the guts to show it to my niece. Mostly because I didn't want the parents to get upset, but, I have to admit, also because I'm afraid of her reaction, whatever it would be.
As for physical similarity, there wasn't much of it when the girl was very little. My sister-in-law was very slim and dark-haired and the child was kind of heavy-set and fair-haired. What was very similar, though, was a distinct melancholy look around her eyes. A high-pitched, but quiet and soft-spoken voice and fine manners also seemed very similar. And over the years, she lost a lot of the heavy-set look, so I guess the physical similarity has increased. But I'd still say that it can't be counted as proof for reincarnation, because physical things in general are likely ruled by the more materialistic side of nature (which is unfortunately still widely regarded as the only one).
There could be fields like Rupert Sheldrake hypothesizes them, of course, but I don't know if they would be "carried over" with consciousness. If they were, why is the physique not a 1:1 match? Of course, there are the birthmarks, sometimes even birth defects (missing fingers etc.), that unmistakenly point to the conclusion that physical things sometimes absolutely are "passed on" non-physically.
Last edited:
